Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Has Licensed iOS Design Patents to Microsoft, Agreement Bans "Cloning"
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
On the contrary, there's nothing simple about it at all.
Market Cap =/= actual value or net worth
agreed, and believe it or not, I really think that window phone 8 is better than android. Still not enough to pull me away from the new iPhone yet
A lot more than what? There is no solid Surface pricing released.
I think there is a similar Logitech keyboard for the iPad. If you want one.
Simple maths. Wrong maths.
If your numbers were correct, $230 billion would get you Microsoft _including_ $68 bn in Microsoft's bank account. Therefore you only need $162bn cash to buy the company. (The numbers are actually a bit off, so you'll need about $200 bn).
>=<
Hmm. So this means that Apple can also add a keyboard to its Smart Cover for iPad.
Hmm. So this means that Apple can also add a keyboard to its Smart Cover for iPad.
And without the Microsoft patent, it wouldn't be completely backwards compatible. That was the point. The patent doesn't give you an implementation of FAT32, it's a patent on mapping long and short file names in the file allocation table so that older implementations get the 8.3 notation and newer ones get a long file name.
All VFAT implementations are basically infringing on the patent. Linux circumvented it by basically breaking older VFAT implementations. A patch was made to only store either the short or the long filename, a technique this patent doesn't cover :
http://arstechnica.com/information-...ch-could-circumvent-microsofts-patent-claims/
----------
Note also that it's all phones/tablets that Samsung sells, not just the models that allegedly implement the patented designs (since Samsung has not yet been found guilty of patent infringement).
I'm interested to see how Microsoft's tablet performs sales-wise. It doesn't look like a shoddy product.
Well, first of all, Microsoft negotiated a cross-licensing agreement and made sure it looks significantly different in a lot of matters. Then, they did that way before they actually brought a product onto the market. They also weren't involved in the production of the iPhone (screen, processor...). So, there are quite some differences. Of course, Apple didn't "offer" it to be licensed. That is not Apple's problem. If you want to use a patent of someone else, you have to ask and negotiate, so, the ball is in the other court. That it is possible to license and even threaten to compete and take part of the cake is shown by the fact that Microsoft got it licensed. In my eyes, MS is the more viable threat to Apple in means of market share than Android. One thing I think MS can do well is offering a well-running closed system. No, not the Windows nightmares like Windows 2, ME, or Vista. More like XBOX, XBOX360. Systems which are proprietary certified driven. The main problem with Windows is either the user not knowing what they do or the software for Windows. Well, that is at least my opinion. I never had a successful virus attack on any of my systems and in my youth, my systems were exposed like crazy on LAN parties. Net Nuke was one of the nicer things we did to each other...
Has anyone considered the possibility of Apple putting Samsung in the same position it was put in by Motorola with regards to FRAND patents? I mean, Apple is just another company in the end seeking to maximize profit. $30 per phone or $40 per tablet seems a bit steep, especially, as many have pointed out, because Android phones are generally cheaper (unlocked) than iPhone's. Not sure about tablet pricings.
The rest of the story about Apple cooperating as much as possible, is of course, subject to a lot of bias since Apple wouldn't want to make itself look bad.
The rest of the story about Apple cooperating as much as possible, is of course, subject to a lot of bias since Apple wouldn't want to make itself look bad.
I think it will do very well. I think the pro targets the power users, I think the rt targets android tablet buyers.
I like android on mah phone, but as a tablet os is iffy.
Hmm. So this means that Apple can also add a keyboard to its Smart Cover for iPad.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that patentlyApple.com showed it's an Apple patent. So, MS is using an Apple patent from cross-licensing. Now, MS drives a different strategy than Apple. They showed what is "coming soon" to the stores. Apple might come out with something similar, maybe even the integrated display in the cover which is also on that patent, just this fall. Who knows? we will all stand in awe, I'm sure of that.
But that is exactly the point - they are cheaper because they don't pay for the IP they use. If I sell you a Laptop as, let's say Acer, and I pre-install MS Windows and Office, I have to pay to MS for the OEM version. If I don't integrate it, I can make it cheaper, but if I give MS with it despite not paying, I am violating IP rights. In other words, Samsung can offer the phones cheaper because they don't pay for what they use.
Compare this with what Apple offered to pay Samsung for their FRAND patents - $0.02 per phone (or something like this).
I know homie and as posted like 5 posts later it's obvious that I mean in the smartphone tablet industry. I mean... I thought it was obvious since that's what we're all talking about and it is obvious that they can smush them in this way.
For those interested, here is Apple's basic license formula. Either $30 or $40 (smartphone or tablet), with possible discounts of:
Here is their example for a Windows Mobile smartphone. Apple wants $6 per unit with a Samsung cross-license... $12 per unit without... but not sure what for, considering WinMo is licensed. Hardware related?
This is the example for an Android device that uses Apple IP. Even with a cross-license, they want $24 per unit:
Here are some of their notes as to why they deserve money. Apparently Apple claims to own some core basics of all modern languages and OSes.
- 20% if Samsung cross-licenses
- 40% if using an OS like Windows Mobile that's already cross-licensed
- 20% if they use an processor already licensed
- 20% if they don't use any Apple design or utility patent at all
Here is their example for a Windows Mobile smartphone. Apple wants $6 per unit with a Samsung cross-license... $12 per unit without... but not sure what for, considering WinMo is licensed. Hardware related?
This is the example for an Android device that uses Apple IP. Even with a cross-license, they want $24 per unit:
Here are some of their notes as to why they deserve money. Apparently Apple claims to own some core basics of all modern languages and OSes.